Gold Catcher

Could not agree more! You need to try it to actually believe it. To me, this coil was a total game changer for the Z without the need to cut the cable.

Sorry to hear. I haven't met a 7000 user yet who doesn't complain about back issues, even without previous injury...

This is where my particular interest would be for the Axiom. I realize that I am in a very different situation than many because I have excellent machines to choose from, and I am just looking for a very particular application (finding gold in very hot ground where other PI's struggle). But I have to say that the GPZ/NF12 in general/difficult (my to-go settings in very thot ground) generally has a very stable threshold and a 0.1 g nugget on the surface would blow your headset of your ears. Now granted, not a fair comparison between these very different detectors (also from a price point!), but for me performance in difficult situations is all that matters. But these particular needs are certainly not what makes a detector great or not. I am sure the Axiom is an excellent detector and a welcomed competitor for ML, and it will make a very convincing case for a great all-round PI with a settings package that the 6000 is lacking (unfortunately). GC

Bummer. Stabilizing the threshold in "7-8 hot ground" and not hearing a surface 0.1 g nugget defeats the purpose. Looking forward to reading more reports as they come in. I have 0 experience with the Axiom and don't know if these settings were appropriate for the ground, but the clip is disturbing to say the least. GC

All detectors have strengths and weaknesses. And it surely appears that the Axiom has particular strengths other detectors don't have. This would make it a great fit into my fleet, in particular thinking of the difficult grounds that I am often faced with. Keep those reports coming, Norvic. Steve already built a very convincing case, and I am that close to pull the trigger! This would open up so much more opportunities for me, and it might outperform the GPZ in situations where I need it the most. Who knows what the new GPZ will bring, but this might be a long way out. And waiting for years is not my forte. 🤠 GC

Still no fair game for your son and grandson, Norvic. Yes they have the Z and the 6k and have younger bones, but you have all the experience in the gold fields that matters the most. I bet you can find more gold with a pin pointer than many others out there having fancy ML machines....Good luck out there and have fun with your new toy. And yes, your word counts. You are one of a few in an elite club who don't need any video evidence to be convincing 🙂 GC

This sounds interesting Norvic, looking forward to your reports. I thought you have it as easy as those guys in NZ with that mild soil 😉. Good to know that you will put the Axiom to a test with those screamers. Stick a little nugget to them and see if it can detect it. Only the Z in general/difficult can detect small gold that is stuck to severe hot rocks from all that I have tried, but talking about light weight....Here the Axiom could fill a real market niche, which for me would be worth the money. And yes, manual GB is a huge plus. I so miss that on the 6000. GC

I am glad Santa has not forgotten you, Norvic. Have fun with this new toy, looking forward to your reports! Espcially interesting will be how the Axiom compares to the 6000 in that mild soil you guys are having up there. I have been naughty in 2022, so I saved Santa the trip.... GC

Good luck finding them. Unless it would hurt the brand, they don't care. GC

I have been using the GM and the GB2, with good success. Both excellent machines for their purpose without a doubt. The newer gen ML VLFs are fantastic choices with many options for successful hunting. But a VLF will always remain a VLF, with the principle caveats (and benfits) of this technology remaining. For my particular needs a PI or ZVT are the much better choices, at least for the most part. But in general diversity is key. Not one detector, or one tech, will fit all needs. But of course, this is also a budget question, as you are pointing out. I hope this helps. GC

No, I am sure she just used it as a pinpointer for her 7000 that is not shown in the picture 😉

Thanks. I am looking forward to the Manticore disc ability. Old wisdom says: either trust your ears by the sounds the targets make (if you really know your machine well-but no guarantees), or dig it all, but do not rely on disc, unless perhaps the targets are huge and shallow. Let's see if things will change. If not, I just have to find huge shallow gold. 😁 GC

I think the two (main) reasons why VLFs have done so well in the past are that (1) there was no PI technology around for comparison and (2) a lot more easy gold was still in the ground. Now, it's getting much more difficult to recover gold, a fact that requires some good depth performance in addition. With 50% more power output the Manticore holds promise in this aspect, hence this would be my choice over the Nox (if I had to choose a VLF....). I personally would use it mostly with a small coil though. But then again, why not the Axiom? GC

I might actually get the Manticore myself, for the reasons Steve was describing.

The point is, they are not. VLFs are no match for the SDC when it comes to shallow gold hunting in difficult soil. You've got to come here to the Motherlode, Phrunt, or to most parts of the CA desert for examples of gold-typical difficult soil conditions to understand this issue a bit better. I doubt that many places on earth have the ultra-mild soil you are having, so less experienced DP members should not be misled when reading the thread. VLFs do have severe limitations in most gold bearing areas (unless in NZ), this is why the SDC was designed and why it has been so successful ("PI-GB2"). I don't say they are entirely useless, and especially with very small coils (GM5, Nox 6) the performance can be reasonable. But not anywhere close to what VLFs can do in super mild ground. In addition, discrimination hardly ever works and you will miss gold, unless the gold is literally touching you coil. Good point Steve. I see the opportunity to use the Manticore (or Nox) for surface scanning and to then perhaps follow up with PI later on. For super trashy areas this might be a good strategy, with the caveats of discrimination understood. But from that perspective, why not using the Axiom right away? Also, for the Manticore discrimination, I wonder what depth would be for the "cliff", where discrimination stops working altogether beyond hope. For the GM it is about anything great than 0.2 inch. GC

I concure. VLFs have very limited use where I hunt as well. But then I only focus on gold prospecting. GC

For VLFs the soil is the biggest factor. You're surely spoiled with the conditions you are having in New Zealand, as you are saying. However, In most parts of the other world gold bearing areas are extremely mineralized, which makes PIs the much better choice. For the general exploration trips I use my SDC (and digg it all), which is also less sensitive to hotrocks than the 6000. At times, I use the GM/5, but mostly only for bedrock scraping and crevice scouting. The GB2 has never delivered for me in heavy mineralized grounds and gold can very easily be missed That's why the SDC/MPF was developed in the first place, which I view as a "hot soil GB2", but with additional potential for somewhat better depth. If the Manticore will be a game changer in this regard we shall see. But I have my doubts, since a VLF will always remain in principle a VLF, does'nt matter how you pack it. However, for treasure hunting this machine will without a doubt be a delight. GC

The winning guy looks a bit like Steve (no offense Steve...) 😁

Good video. All were shallow surface targets though that the pinpointer easily picked up. It would be interesting to see the target IDs at some depth and how well this would work by comparison. I am personally not a relic/treasure hunter and don't care too much about discriminating metals, but I can see how this machine could be a real value addition for those who are into it. Amazing the plethora of settings and graphic displays. Makes my 6000 with virtually no settings to choose from look cheap....😉 Nice job ML! GC

Exactly right, Norvic. I am the same way. Early in my detecting life someone once close to Jim Straight told me that Jim would get excited about every single nugget he found, didn't matter the size. That story has stayed in my mind ever since and has made a lasting impression on me, especially considering what gold he found over his career. A true gold prospector cherishes gold, no matter what. GC

As always, it depends on individual perspectives. I kind of see it both ways. Improving what can be found on old patches, including opening up fields that are thus far difficult to detect (i.e. extensive hot rocks), but also trying to find new patches in unexplored areas (where no man has gone before). Re size, I am happy about all, and a 0.1 g nugget can make me as excited as much larger ones. After all, it is about finding gold, and I have not yet yawned about any nugget in my scoop. Gold is gold to me, small or large. But I am also not trying to pay bills with it. And I doubt that many really would be able to do so anyhow, despite of what they are hoping. At least not here in the US and by just doing metal detecting. GC

A better detector won't of course help with trash (assuming disc is out of question). But perhaps identifying gold close to (or attached to) hot rocks is something a better processing algorithm could achieve. The pic below is an example of what I am describing, taking from a hunting trip yesterday. All super iron rich volcanic tuff. Gold is often stuck to them or is in very close proximity. Some guys were up here with me, one with a 6000 and one with a GB2. They were just laughing....

I tend to agree with you Steve, but those areas I was describing also have a lot of trash, meaning not many people are detecting there due to the challenges with the ground. I suspect there is plenty of gold still there that is currently difficult to recover. But for most other areas I agree, and the Motherlode is a great example for that. However, I also think hunting gold where gold was found before remains a winning strategy, perhaps not the only one though. GC

Better ground processing in difficult soil would allow for greater depth, without the gold actually being physically deeper than in normal soil. This is exactly where I believe technology can improve. I get your point that for mild soil this does not matter much, but in other parts of the world this would be a game changer. In many areas I have no choice but to hunt in general/difficult (volcanic tuff). Switching to HY in either normal or difficult would make the detector completely useless, even general/normal would not work. Here is where a lot of improvements can be done, so I completely agree with you. BTW, for those areas I don't even bother to take the 6000 or the SDC. Another reason why a high-end top line gold detector needs settings options (!), and I think the current GPZ strives a good balance by having just the right settings menu to choose from. What would make me not want to buy the GPZ8? A "smart" machine that would do the thinking for me, ala 6000, with only little settings options to choose from. I love the 6000, but it has serious limitations to a point where it is unusable, i.e. in the areas that I was describing, where literally every rock is a screamer (6/14 makes no difference). With all the greatness of the 6000, it kind of sucks to have a $6000 machine, and you can't adjust any settings to make it usable for these specific tough grounds. Half of the Mojave Desert is littered with volcanic hot rocks, and that is right where the gold bearing areas are. And I am not just saying areas with hot rocks here and there that you can kick away, I mean large areas with shallow and deep hot rocks and that's all there is. Go and take a swing with the 6k in these areas, and you know what I mean. Just for that reason, I would be very interested in the Axiom, had I not the GPZ that would come to my rescue (in general/difficult). However, the Axiom could even have an edge over the GPZ in those specific circumstances. I would love to make a head-to-head comparison to see which detector would recover better small gold that is stuck to serious hot rocks. That is how you find most of the gold there. GC

Much reduced weight, perhaps punching a bit deeper, faster ground processing, updated and faster software and better(!) screen would do for me. Asking for acurate discrmination at depth is asking for too much IMO. I am no engineer, but I heard engineers saying accurate discrmination is a pipe dream and not technically feasible, in particular at the detecting edge. If the GPZ8 would come with discrimination I would almost think this would be purely to please relic hunters, and kind of a joke for a high end gold detector. I don't think anybody really believes in accurate discrimination, unless you want to identify a rusty can from a gold watch (perhaps). GC